Pitch Count
I’ve heard it on every media outlet today. Pitch count. As we all know Curt Schilling threw 133 pitches in a no-decision against Cleveland. People are criticizing both Schilling and Francona for letting him stay in the game. Not me. I’m their side with on this one. I’m sure that those 33 extra pitches will not be a reason that the Sox ace will be tired or on the DL in September. Of course if that does everyone will be talking about that cold night in Cleveland.
But what ever happened to those days where a pitch count was never thought of? I know that supposedly a pitcher is less effective after 100 pitches, but what about the ones that can keep going? Bullpens are better now days (or so it seems) and there isn’t a so called “fireman” in the pen with the new age roles of long, specialist, set-up and mop-up men. I don’t completely disagree with a 100 pitch count, because it is a fairly close mark and probably saves a lot of careers. But back in the day (even 20 years ago), pitchers must have been a lot stronger and better conditioned. Now a complete game is an iron man accomplishment.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Hmmm… all I know is Arroyo’s pitch count was probably higher than Wells and DiNardo’s to deliver 1-hit, 8 inning ball for the Reds. He’s now 4-0.
April 27th, 2006 at 8:27 am
4-0 in the NL. I’ll give credit where credit is due, but like Ekersley and Gordon Edes said last night, wait until the hitters get used to seeing that curve ball. 20 wins is not likely for him and if he were in Boston still, he may not have one win the way we’ve been hitting.
Hind sight right? Think Theo should’ve traded Wells now and kept Aroyyo?
April 27th, 2006 at 10:10 am
I always thought we should’ve traded Wells, but unfortunately I don’t think other teams wanted him for what we needed in return.